Read on Twitter
The TLDR from Wolfram& #39;s announcement:
1. It is not a theory of everything - as he says- but a path to get to one
2. It& #39;s possible to define notions of time, causality, or space using transformations between graphs
3. Atm one can& #39;t even recover, say, Newtonian physics using this
1. It is not a theory of everything - as he says- but a path to get to one
2. It& #39;s possible to define notions of time, causality, or space using transformations between graphs
3. Atm one can& #39;t even recover, say, Newtonian physics using this
new language. Having sth like that would have been quite impressive!I bet that gets done eventually
4. A priori it makes sense that with sufficient abstraction anything gets represented; the merit of what Wolfram did is to hint at specific ways in which to derive phys. meaning
4. A priori it makes sense that with sufficient abstraction anything gets represented; the merit of what Wolfram did is to hint at specific ways in which to derive phys. meaning
Is this the right way to get to a theory of everything? . It& #39;s not like we have succeeded so far, so why not try ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
If one then wants to be sneaky, one can look at the past success of the cellular automata way of thinking presented in NKS. Some things came out of it https://writings.stephenwolfram.com/2012/05/its-been-10-years-whats-happened-with-a-new-kind-of-science/">https://writings.stephenwolfram.com/2012/05/i... But not a revolution that I recall some hoped when the book was out
I bet we& #39;ll see a lot of interesting graph-based art though!
(To clarify, he says that -it is not a theory of everything-, not that it is; he& #39;s not being misleading)
@cmuratori also has a good thread https://twitter.com/cmuratori/status/1250116047585210369">https://twitter.com/cmuratori...
